MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089887872 · doi:10.1021/ci6002637

Docking Ligands into Flexible and Solvated Macromolecules. 1. Development and Validation of FITTED 1.0

2007· article· en· W2089887872 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher R. Corbeil, Pablo Englebienne, Nicolas Moitessier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Information and Modeling · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMacromoleculeDocking (animal)ChemistryComputational chemistryBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the development and validation of a novel suite of programs, FITTED 1.0, for the docking of flexible ligands into flexible proteins. This docking tool is unique in that it can deal with both the flexibility of macromolecules (side chains and main chains) and the presence of bridging water molecules while treating protein/ligand complexes as realistically dynamic systems. This software relies on a genetic algorithm to account for the flexibility of the two molecules as well as the location of bridging water molecules. In addition, FITTED 1.0 features a novel application of a switching function to retain or displace key water molecules from the protein-ligand complexes. Two independent modules, ProCESS and SMART, were developed to set up the proteins and the ligands prior to the docking stage. Validation of the accuracy of the software was achieved via the application of FITTED 1.0 to the docking of inhibitors of HIV-1 protease, thymidine kinase, trypsin, factor Xa, and MMP to their respective proteins.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations211
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Information and ModelingSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207